Five Fallacies | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios 

I stopped arguing on the internet last year and since then I've become much fitter, happier, got a girlfriend, a job and I stopped losing my hair.

What about the "fallacy fallacy". When people point out that someone is using a fallacy and use that to discredit the argument entirely.

As a supporter of gamer gate I do not approve of threats. But I do not understand the idea that threats are unacceptable to the point where you have to invalidate the entire movements based on a few. Because let's face it, the *vast* majority of what has been aimed towards people by the gamer gate movement has been legit criticism, which these people in an attempt to play victims have tried to call harassment. Invalidating gamer gate because of a few alleged threats just seems like a ploy to avoid facing the very real criticism.

Me: Gives my mom a well thought-out argument with plenty of evidence to tell her why she is in the wrong in this instance and am very respectful throughout the delivery of my monologue My mom: No Me: why? My mom: Because I said so

I don't really care about gamergate but I found it interesting that the reasons Mike's against it is due to the vocal minorities actions as opposed to the majority. By that reasoning we should judge religions by the extremist committing acts of terror instead of what the majority feel its for.

Didn't you use an ad hominem attack at the end of the video on gamergate supporters? I mean I love the video and your channel in general but why focus on the idiotic actions of a few when there are serious concerns, as you clearly understand, in gaming journalism and development? Or how about the ridiculous reactions on countless sites since all of this broke (ie shadowbans on reddit or the infamous GameJournoPros story)?

Good for you Mike for joining those of us standing against Gamergate because of their horrendous tactics. The level of hypocrisy in so many of it's supporters is downright baffling. It's the same reason I will not stand beside the legion of SJW in places like Tumblr even though some mean well. I may be a member of the LGBT community, but I'm more often embarassed by the community at large's actions than proud of them.

MORE!!! (throws coffee mug on the floor)

If you do decide to make a gamergate episode, can you please explain what it is EXACTLY? I'm still unsure as to what it is, what its for, who it targets, what its goal is and why I should even care. It doesn't help that there are people saying it represents or means multiple different things. For example some people say its about corrupt games journalism, others say its about gamers being sexist and misogynistic towards women (no idea how that's possible when tonnes of women like myself ARE gamers but okay) and others say that its about what defines a gamer and anyone that doesn't follow that exact definition isn't a gamer. Honestly, I'd just like some clarity on the whole thing in an unbiased and intelligent way.

The problem with fallacies is that they don't matter if there is no mediator judging the discussion. If the person who committed the fallacy frankly, does not give a damn, and no one else does either then its almost as if the fallacy not only doesn't exist, but just made their argument even more airtight. How often have you seen a comment that said "You're argument is wrong because you just used Ad Hominem" (which I see quite a lot in comment sections) and the other guy going "O damn, you're right, man you sure got me, I messed up."

I find that gamergate has split into two,we 1) gamergate vs journalists and ethics in journalism, the actual debate where it should be talked out. 2) Internet trolls vs feminists radicals on both sides have twisted the original arguments, as bad as each other one self entitled grandiosity that is using the controversy to become well known and the idiots who just want to cause a fight and have a problem with other people with no interest in the original arguments

PLEEEASE MAKE MORE OF THE FALLACY VIDEOS! I love being able to look back on these and point out that people aren't actually focusing on the point of the discussion.

He clearly doesn't understand the actual reasoning behind the creation of Gamergate. The only reason it is what it is today, is because of the bullshit excuses made by the journalists initially to protect themselves. Those statements ignored the actual issue entirely, completely attempting to shift the focus from their own corruption to the "harassment" that was and always has taken place on the internet. Certain groups attached to that to forward their own cause, shifting the focus further, and a vocal minitoriy attacked them, sometimes taking it too far, thus continuing the circle. The GamerGate issue is ethics/transparency/honesty in Journalism, THAT'S IT. There are two extremist groups of people bashing each other over the head, completely distracting from the original statement. Women in the industry and harassment are two separate issues in their own right and should be discussed, but they are both completely unrelated to the original intent of gamergate. To these extremist groups you are either for corruption and feminism, or you are anti-corruption and for misogyny, and that just makes no fucking sense. Being Pro-Gamergate doesn't excuse harassment, but it also says absolutely nothing about women in the industry or anything that seems to have attached itself to the cause. Gamergate is about gamers vs game journalists/developers/judges/etc, NOTHING ELSE. Anyone that truly thinks otherwise is simply trying to distract from that discussion, or push their own cause by artificially attaching it to gamergate.

Gamergate is a great example of many of these fallacies. The anti camp has been arguing about how gamergate are a bunch of misogynistic exclusionary jerks, while the gamergate camp is trying to argue about corruption in gaming blogs, a clear example of the straw man fallacy. There's been plenty of ad hominem attacks on both sides, I mean we've all seen the vitriole coming from both sides, attacking the characters of the side, as opposed to actually arguing about corruption in gaming blogs. There's some "no true scotsman" mixed in there, with both sides attempting to quell the worst of their worst. Really, the fallacy that killed gamergate was the black-and-white fallacy, wherein people on both sides started claiming that if you sided with the other, you must hate women or support corruption in gaming blogs, when really there are plenty of people who both have a great deal of respect women and do want gaming blogs to stop being so horribly corrupt. I can't really think of any appeals to authority, although when your authority figures are gaming bloggers or reddit users, there's not really much that an appeal to authority can do, especially when both sides hate each other so much. There's got to be a certain level of respect between people for an appeal to authority to work. Really though, at the end of the day, I think that Gamergate has taught us two things: maybe don't expect bloggers to not be corrupt when companies have a lot of money on the line, and maybe don't trust the internet to not be a butthole...basically ever, really.

I'm sure there is a bigger discussion to be had here, but I need to be clear on one thing... The Watergate scandal had Nothing to do with Water. At all. It's the name of a hotel. We seriously need to stop using the -gate suffix for these kinds of things. It's obnoxious.

I would love to have more fallacies! I'm working on my masters thesis, and these are helping me identifying fallacies in my own work and the conversations I'm having with other MA students.

I took a debate class a few semesters ago and this is basically what we learned. This was way more fun to learn watching this.

Jesus Christ! Since when was this a Gamergate video? That's all the comments are focusing on! I don't know why people are so hung up on it - I mean, the whole "corruption" was just the baseless accusations of an angry ex-boyfriend. It was just a breaking-up squabble and it's reached the point where the poor woman doesn't even feel safe in her own house. Her family members don't even feel safe in their own houses. It's not a corruption thing, guys. It's far far darker than that.

So Mike brings up an interesting point about Gamer Gate (disclaimer: I'm very pro-Gamer Gate, and if you're not up to speed, I highly recommend you go to the Gamer Gate section of 8chan to see our point of view, and probably seek out some resources to see the other point of view as well). I think a lot of us can agree that corruption in Games Journalism is a problem and that it should be fixed. The problem is, the reason Gamer Gate has been portrayed as very anti-women/minorities/whatever is because Gamer Gate is a movement by the people, the consumers, against the corrupt goings on of games journalists and developers. We've made it clear in posts on 8chan that we do not condone the threatening of anybody in our name, we are not out for blood, and we are not against more diversity in games (personally, I'd love to see more women - especially queer women - represented in video games). We boycott organizations and argue and send emails in order to get the change we desire (which, as has been stated before, is to get corruption out of games journalism), and it may not have worked 100% yet, but it is working. The Escapist, which we've railed against before on grounds of corruption, has recently implemented a new standard of ethics and has been very public about it. Intel recently pulled their advertising from Gamasutra, which we've also criticized on grounds of corruption (prior to that, most of us boycotted Intel, and now that they've done that, we're not boycotting them anymore). Meanwhile, our opposition (primarily from the journalists and game developers we're calling out) has done little to address our arguments, instead preferring to just focus on how we're all hateful, full of -isms, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, Zoe Quinn started the whole shitstorm with TFYC (she tweeted something along the lines of "Oops, did I doxx someone?" around the time that was happening, which while not an outright confirmation, does make her extremely fishy), the editor in Chief of Kotaku once said a while back that people should recuse themselves in conflicts of interest and then went on to defend the journalist who was alleged to have had a relationship with Zoe Quinn prior to reporting on Depression Quest (if I recall correctly - and I don't remember 100% so take it with a grain of salt - he basically just said something along the lines of "What he did wasn't wrong, so back off"). The big problem, I think, is how Gamer Gate started. It started as a movement by anonymous people on 4chan (many of whom decided to leave for good when moot decided to censor us - gee, that sure was nice of the "Champion of Unfiltered Free Speech"), and a ton of us have decided to stay anonymous. Because there aren't any big figure heads, it's easy for us to be misrepresented as a bunch of woman/black/latino/queer hating fuckwads. The New York Times and The Guardian have both misrepresented us, showing a clear lack of respect and journalistic integrity, which makes me think that maybe we should expand out to all areas of journalism. Maybe turn Gamer Gate into a general journalistic watch dog movement. tl;dr - We're being misrepresented by the people we're opposing, threats in the name of Gamer Gate do happen and it's shit and we hate it, and my comment is a winding fuckwad of text and I apologize for all this.

I loved this and I think you are doing the internet a great service by making available these concise, accessible descriptions on types of fallacies and argument etiquette. I don't comment very often but I'm going to exercise my potential power as a viewer to influence the channel in this case. Please make more!

It's ironic how a video explaining fallacies makes a blatant fallacy at the end by saying that #GamerGate is represented by sexism and harassment. It's a -non sequitur- association fallacy: 1. Person A is sexist. 2. Person A is part of GamerGate. 3. Therefore, GamerGate is sexist. (It's kind of a reverse no true Scotsman.) Just because a minority of people in the GamerGate movement are sexist, that doesn't mean the whole movement is sexist. It would also count as an ad hominem: 1. Person A is part of GamerGate. 2. Person A is sexist. 3. Therefore, GamerGate shouldn't be taken seriously. Just because a minority of people in the GamerGate movement are sexist, that doesn't mean that their main goal of wanting to stop corruption in the video game news media and development should be undermined. UPDATE: It was also pointed to me that Mike's fallacy is closer to an association fallacy, and I would have to agree.

Maybe I heard the whole thing wrong, but you just used a Black and White Fallacy in a video talking about why the Black and White Fallacy is wrong. The gamergaters AREN'T defined by sexism and vitriolic behavior, or at least to my knowledge they aren't. They're defined by people who want games journalism to be more trustworthy. I could be employing a strawman fallacy here, but to me it really seems like you're saying that once you become a gamergater you're a sexist, which isn't true in the least.

Actually on the topic of Gone Home, completing the game is a Win-state and failing to find the next clue or whatever is implicitly a lose-state. The key is that there is a degree of challenge inherent in playing it. Otherwise it's not a 'game'. Note this a) doesn't prevent such 'interactive experiences' from being enjoyable or having value them in any way and b) is an important distinction to make for people buying a game. Many people playing games enjoy overcoming adversity. Be it finding hidden objects, solving a puzzle or just bashing people who get in your way over the head. I think the more important question to ask when discussing this sort of thing is 'Would a game like The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us be more or less enjoyable if you were unable to lose in anyway?' As well as 'Are 'genres' actually informing purchasing decisions enough these days?'

It would be wonderful to have a few more of these fallacy videos pop up over time, I think this one was super helpful both for me keeping track of my own previously not noticed bad argument habits and helping to explain them to others who might have them.

First you explain the strawman fallacy and at 12:29 you seriously say this: "I understand that the party line is that GamerGate has ethical concerns at its forefront and that it is about games journalism, but for me GamerGate is very much defined by the harassment of women and its terrible exclusionary tactics ..." my hypocrisy-meter melted

And yet Sarkisian still isn't a gamer...

Your example for no true scottsman is incorrect. A no true scottsman fallacy only applies if the piece in question contains the properties of the group as defined. If games are defined as 'having defined or implied failure states in an attempt to test a skill of an individual in a manner that is entertaining', then gone home fails to meet this definition. Basically, you can not commit a 'no true scottsman fallacy', unless the consensus definition does not carry the attributes used in the descriptor definition. To use a less nebulous example: "All scottish citizens are recognized as citizens by the scottish state." 'But O'Malley is a scottish citizen and is not recognized by the state as such!' "O'Malley isn't recognized as a citizen by the state, therefore he fails to meet the basic definition of being a Scottish Citizen." No matter how much an individual wants to extricate something or include it in a label, it is only labeled as such when it meets the pre-requisites of the label, and can not be extricated if it does meet the pre-requisites of the label. The ' no TRUE ____' only makes the argument seem apparent, when it it just as likely to apply to someone not saying that they're not a 'true' blank, but rather that 'x' is not blank. If a statement makes logical sense by replacing 'is not a TRUE _____' with 'is not a ______', then it is not a 'no true scottsman'.

What exactly is the point of explaining these fallacies if you are then going to use them to try to dismiss a consumer revolt like #GamerGate ? Also, I keep hearing anti- #GamerGate folk repeatedly saying women are being harassed out of gaming, but #NotYourShield says otherwise. As well as the many women in gaming development that have been working in the field for decades now. So just out of curiosity I'd like to see all the concrete evidence about the apparently thousands of cases of harassment against women and minorities by #GamerGate ers that Mike speaks about. I'm talking cases besides Sarkeesian, Wu and Quinn of course. Because I've seen a lot of evidence of harassment against pro- #GamerGate ers already and yet every time I ask for the same evidence from anti-GG they go back to talking about the aforementioned 3 cases, or they throw a tantrum and try to insult me like a child would for some reason. And with that out of the way I want to address one misconception I've seen very often. And it's that people thinks Quinn was what made #GamerGate huge, but that is not the case. It was instead the censorship and cover up attempts done by sites when people tried talking about it that sparked the revolt instead. Before that happened it was little more than a nameless squabble between Quinn and 4chan for the most part. But when sites and bloggers posing as journalists started attacking gamers and suppressing all discussion about it people like me took notice, and that was what made so many moderate people join under the GamerGate hashtag. In my case I couldn't care less about Sarkeesian, Wu or Quinn, and my only objective as a gamer/consumer is for corrupt sites and "journalists" to be brought to light so gamers and sponsors see them for whom they really are. This has already happened by the way. And it was accomplished despite the massive propaganda against #GamerGate , and the revolt is only moving forward with no sign of slowing down until the corrupt journalists are out or their sites become even more irrelevant than they already are by now. Bigger, professional outlets already took notice, and are planning to capitalize from the vacuum left by these decaying sites and bloggers. And since gaming is already an industry of almost 20 billion in the US alone the competition will take care of the corrupt stragglers still trying to attack gamers. Why? Because when you attack and demonize your audience, who are also your costumers, they will simply stop giving you money. And all the people advertising in those sites do so because they want to sell their products, so buying ads on sites that antagonize costumers becomes a very bad idea for them. And as such they will move on to other outlets that actually respect their costumers. As simple as that, and no amount of misrepresentation or shaming will change things. Because that just doesn't work on gamers. We've been forged in the fires of the internet and online gaming already, and we play to win. d(^-^d) PS > www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

I disagree with your understanding of the argument from authority fallacy. You seem to be saying it's mistaking someone who isn't an authority on a subject for someone who is. That's not, in my understanding, the fallacy of the argument from authority. That's not even a fallacy, really, that's just poor judgement!.. The fallacy of the argument from authority is arguing that the truth value of a statement derives from the fact *that it was said by an authority* rather than *why it was said by an authority*. It's substituting an authority's *opinion* over their *evidence*. . (But 5 extra points for the demonstration at the end, where you show a "no true scotsman" by saying some of the so-called "gamergaters" aren't really "true gamergaters"..;)

If Gone Home is a video game, then a movie where you have to press the play button every 5 seconds is a video game.

Am I the only one only hearing about gamergate via all their favorite people on the internet condemning it?

"You can tell me all day long that social justice warriors engage in the same tactics or that Gamergaters set up a campaign to donate to an anti-bullying charity. It kind of doesn't matter, because Gamergate has become so connected to, so defined by harrassment and of vitriol." I'm starting to wonder if he left this statement there as an exercise for us to find all the fallacies.

Let´s leave something clear. #GamerGate is not a political party, nor a movement or a structured architecture of any sorts. It is a consumer revolt made from people that are tired to be looked down upon the media they support. Calling #GamerGate a Harassment/misogyny campaign is also a huge disservice on people like Christina H Sommers, Jennie Bharaj, Jayd3 Fox and other women in the hashtag as well as #notyourshield . I thought this was an Ad-Hominem Mike

Here's something that doesn't really belong in any of these categories: A couple of days ago I suggested to a youtuber that, regarding his international viewership, he use the metric system in his videos. This comment had the sole purpose to state that a considerable part of the audience might have problems to understand the content because it was presented in the imperial system that hardly anybody outside the U.S. uses. However, this started an ongoing discussion about which system is the better one. This is a problem in many comments or discussions: Somebody makes a valid, yet specific point, and everybody lifts this up to a large-scale level and starts to ramble endlessly.

I don't know if there's a named fallacy for this, but I believe the root of all these is that *the person committing the fallacy isn't willing to concede.* I had to learn to concede an argument awhile ago, and once I did, I started learning a lot more!

Also, I extreamly respect your stance on having and forming your own oppinion and standing with it no matter the differing oppinions, while remaning open for differing facts and data.

In regards to gamergate I pretty much just watched a couple pro-gamergate youtube videos about it, and I don't remember it encouraging harassment of anyone of any kind. Can someone tell me what I missed? EDIT: From the videos I've watched, all I've seen are arguments talking about how corrupt gaming journalism is.

The only problem with the whole anti-feminist part of Gamer Gate is that it is part of the reason it started. Zoe Quinn a feminist in as far as she can make money (that being she totally shut down a charity with the soul purpose as to allow women with no experience in making games actually make a game because she wanted the winner to get payed more) slept with several games journalists in order to gain popularity and positive reviews for her indie game. With that spark of controversy it grew into this giant flame which exposed a hidden group of Journalists that email each other and that use the journalistic medium to sell their views i.e. social justice warrior type ideas. Those same journalists posted a coordinated attack against Gamers in their articles saying that "Gamers are dead" and tried to sell a black and white fallacy of your either a "gamer" and represent all of the evils that the social justice warriors try to sell or a "gamer plus" which is basically a good person. I feel sorry for you that you have been sold the false idea that #gamergate is anti-feminist, anti-women, or exclusionary because at the end of the day GamerGate is all about getting the topic back to Gaming and not about false representations of what Gamers are. Please I don't want what happened to the Atheist community happen to the Gamer community when the radical feminists rolled in with their "Atheist Plus" shenanigans

i think the biggest problem with #gamergate is that they don't see what they're doing as either 1) harassment or 2) misogynistic. i literally saw a post on a gamergate forum earlier saying, "how dare felicia day criticize #gamergate as misogynistic? she's just a washed up booth babe looking for press." these people are so incredibly steeped in this sort of thing they don't realize what they're doing is incredibly problematic. they think condemning outright threats somehow makes the other things they're doing okay. but the surrounding milieu of #gamergate creates and enables that direct abuse by creating an incredibly vitriolic, toxic environment. often via lies, slander and misrepresentation.

After all these years, I still enjoy seeing the video is 13:37 long :D.

Mike at the end of your video, you can literally substitute gamergate with feminism and it will still be applicable, even though they are painted differently by the media. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see fair representation and equality in games and society in general, but I cannot associate myself with feminism as much as I can't associate myself with gamergate. I hate that people are being threatened and bullied, but for once I would like to see people like Anita Sarkeesian for example stand up to valid criticism. Even if gamergate people are separated into people who just harass and people who are actually concerned about ethics in media, the other party is not concerned with letting their arguments stand on it's own merits and will group any actual arguments as harassment.

1. I say DEFINITELY do more fallacy videos. It is a community service to your home town. 2. On the GamerGate thing, ::SIGH::. The problem is this debate wound up fueling a brushfire of vitriol, from both sides I might add, much of which was fabricated or machined into existence, and a lot of the fallacies you have made mention of in this video are getting thrown about... A LOT. On the GamerGate side, aside from those known agitators who are not there for a cause but TO CAUSE offense and destruction (guilty parties on both sides to be sure), as is the case with any movement, it has been largely peaceable and has some very valid concerns over journalism, ethics, and the interplay between those without scruples and the gaming population as a whole. Gamers by and large are decent, typically younger, people who are pretty darn open and accepting. Most everyone I have seen on the pro-GG side making comments have been as put out and angered by the poor behavior of the bad apples as anyone Anti-GG (ignoring the "members" of both sides of the debate who are themselves bad apples in this context), as anyone should be when hatred is being spewed, but there are valid concerns about agendas and politics overtaking real positive change and introspection. On the ANTI side my main issue has revolved around the bandying about of claims and accusations of... personal misanthropic agendas. It is well, good, and RIGHT to point out an individual who is spouting hate, or making threats, and allow the culture as a whole to shun them or remedy the rabble rouser in its midst, it is quite another to paint the entire culture with the brush of those vitriolic personalities. There are individuals who act in ways that give credence to the accusations being brought, but they are acting out on both sides of the battle lines, and do not reflect the entire gaming community. All these gross and negative terms and actions are not a quality of the gamer community but of the individual "gamers" who possess those qualities. It is a problem, but not one the entire gaming community is collectively guilty for. It is a problem stemming directly from those antagonists. We should not forget that the gaming community is a large and robust population made up of all walks of life, and to make collective claims against a community made up of individuals is scary and disheartening.

So, about the ad hominem fallacy, sometimes you will see people try to dismiss someone over a small spelling mistake rather than addressing that person's points. Is that an ad hominem? I've always treated it as one.

The mark of a truly great debater is the ability to infuse many fallacies into his argument without getting caught.

I would actually like to see an idea channel episode on GamerGate as I have seen numerous stories on it but still can't grasp exactly what it is all about. One talks about questionable journalist-developer relations, theres some misogyny in there, something about death threats, the whole Zoe Quinn fiasco... it just sounds like one big clusterfuck to me. It would be good to have some clarity on the subject.

I think the biggest logical fallacy was the one that closed off the video. GamerGate users openly condemn harassment and is welcoming of minorities (see NotYourShield), and there is plenty of evidence that third parties are making the threats in order to place blame to the group. In addition, the supposed "oppressed" groups in question have been shown to either exaggerate their harassment (Brianna Wu and the "Oppressed GamerGater" incident, where she claimed users hijacked her meme - which was ironically made to harass GamerGaters - to harass her, when very few images even mentioned her, and no threats were made) or outright fake it (the "Death To Brianna" twitter account was extremely suspicious, and she even announced the death threat before it even occurred). Plus, GamerGaters have recently taken an effort to report any death threat - sincere or not - on either side. Are you not for GamerGate? That's perfectly fine. However, don't believe the talk about misogyny for a second. You're playing right into the hands of the GameJournoPros, who are writing that narrative, when you do.

11:02 Who is in the picture? But I have a bad feeling about who it is...

Ad hominem attack and ad hominem fallacy are not the same thing. An 'ad hominem' attack is simply adding insults. It doesn`t affect the argument. In an 'ad hominem' fallacy, the insult IS your argument.

So...you spend 10+ minutes explaining these 5 logical fallacies...and then invoke most of them at the end of the video in your description of GamerGate? I mean, does that...even...register for you? This is just what makes it so difficult for me to take anti-GGer's seriously. Logic and reason go right out the window when you start talking about GG, and it just turns into a string of logical fallacies just brimming with loathing and disgust. I really, really want both sides to reach across the divide and have an honest conversation about this topic. I wholeheartedly do. I just don't know how we're going to do that when you guys can't even acknowledge the possibility that GG isn't "literally an ISIS of Hitlers."

Thank you so much for your stance on Gamer Gate. I appreciate that you do not shy away from controversy in your videos, and that when you talk about them you do so with grace and in a succinct manner.

It's the Black & White Fallacy that made me give up on American politics. The two party system creates an arbitrary, polarized dichotomy, and that prevents actual political discussion from occurring. A person who would otherwise hold a moderate opinion is forced to choose either one extreme or another. The parties lambast and demonize each other, so their party members see the other side as the enemy, refusing to listen to anything they say or take them seriously. And since they refuse to consider the other side, they only listen to their own party's press and arguments, creating an echo chamber effect, and pushing them to further and further extremes. This extremism prevents them further from considering even a more moderate version of their opponent's positions, setting the whole process moving again in a vicious cycle. This fallacy is the most insidious, because it is often the only point the two sides agree on, and politics as a whole suffers for it.

You are not quite correct on "Appeal to authority" though. This fallacy happens when one uses authority (of the speaker or quoting others) DESPITE the invalidity of the argument, simply because Authority Source says so. This is true even if the source is the authority on the subject matter. When you assume authority where one does not have, and assign credibility because of that. That is called "Appeal to non-authorities". E.g. your example of the mechanical engineer vs auto industry materials.

Regarding gamergate that he talks about at the end isn't he using a fallacy grouping everyone that is pro gamergate into a single group?

Please speak up about Gamergate. As a worker in media and entertainment, as well as a female gamer among many others friends, it's been very sad sight from my experience. I am not welcome to the gaming community.

ironically i think where gamergate failed in taking on journalism and the media was the fact that they didnt have enough notable figures/leaders with strong ties to journalists and the media to get their side of the story out. i dont think they intended for it to turn into an internet war, and i believe both sides gained support from people they probably didnt want involved. (GG getting trolls and the ugly side of Anon, and the media getting the crazy/scary side of the feminist movement. i think the total damage was most likely done by these two almost exclusively.) but only one side was able to spread their side of the story with ease. and in the end, no one saw the harassment or death threats, or doxing, and everything else aimed at the GGers. and after a point no one cared. so much coverage was shown from one side that GGs side of the story had become irrelevant. "harassing women" was what they became famous for, and at that point they lost all grounds to stand on. or at least thats how it seems from what ive picked up after actually trying to look into this mess.

My English Professor just assigned this video for our class to watch and take notes on and...... This is literally every single argument that happens in every online video game setting I learned my lesson with trying to defend myself against other people on the internet from getting my League of Legends account perma-banned 2 years ago... Embarrassing and i definitely deserved it. It is extremely harrowing and very humbling seeing these fallacies being elucidated because i can now how my "arguments" really came across to the other party, and vice versa. I hope people find it as helpful as i did. It definitely shapes the way how I'll interact with the random people i get paired with on my teams.

A good video about fallacies! I know everyone wants to jump on the Gamergate comments on the end, but I want to comment on the actual substance of the video. I'll add a note at the end about Gamergate. 1. Strawman - Good rundown of this fallacy. I especially like how you point how that using the strawman means the members of a debate end up talking past each other rather than debating the subject at hand. 2. Ad Hominem - Bonus points for the Tu Quoque ("you too") fallacy. Glad you specified that this is only important when the appeal to character is irrelevant to the discussion. 3. False Dichotomy / False Dilemma - A little fast and loose with terminology here, but a good overall summary of presenting only the extreme ends of a debate. I felt like you were dancing around a bunch of different fallacies here and trying to lump them all into one category. This was the least clear of your overviews. 4. Argument from Authority - Problematic. You tried to elevate the status of science above its station. It doesn't matter if you're citing God, your best friend's roommate, NASA, or Noam Chomsky. If all you're doing is appealing to an authority, then that's an informal fallacy. For instance, the statement, "Science tells us that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old" on its own without any other evidence or argumentation is fallacious. The reason appealing to science works in society is because you can make further appeals to the arguments and evidence within science to further backup a claim. That is, it's well founded stuff. When you just use science like a Bible, though, you're elevating science to an authoritative place that it doesn't belong in. In this section you get lost in exploring what is or is not a good authority when, in logic, that is irrelevant. 5. No True Scotsman - This is such a complicated fallacy that putting it at the end with so little time didn't do it justice. For instance, say someone classifies themselves (or another) in a group where they don't logically belong. For instance, the Nazis praised Nietzsche as their party's philosophical father despite the fact that Naziism would have been anathema to Nietzsche. On the opposite side of this, we have Heidegger, who was actually a Nazi, but whose philosophy was also entirely at odds with Naziism. Who is the true Scotsman here? I don't like the fallacy very much because people can and will identify as something that they are not, so it's not very meaningful to get caught up in the issue one way or another. I, for one, am tired of atheists who try to "claim" historical figures like Einstein or contemporary figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson for their own political ends just as much as I'm tired of really any group who fights to try to put individuals in or out of any particular box to meet their ends. The whole practice of categorizing people at all should really be a fallacy. Anyhow, would liked to have seen a little nuance here, but I understand why it wasn't present. Overall this was a great video, though! As for all the people claiming that the last couple of minutes are just fallacies, just let me remind you that no argument was actually being made. They were just statements about the position of Idea Channel and some thoughts about the movement. Bringing up something like sexism within Gamergate is also not an Ad Hominem as, if you remember from the video, it's actually very relevant to the discussion. I recommend you hold on to your rage and ready your jerking knee for when and if Idea Channel actually releases a video about the subject.

Saying that GamerGate is defined by the harassment of women is exactly the same as saying that Islam is defined by terrorism... #ButThatsNoneOfMyBusiness

Honestly, at this point the Gamergate conflict is like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Both sides have committed so many crimes against each other that at this point, there's no moral high ground anymore.

Thank you very much for this video, it helped me realized I frequently use some of the fallacies you described in fear of losing an argument. I hope that knowing them will improve my conversations and help me build stronger arguments. Also I believe it's important to remind people (myself included) the goal of arguing, a better understanding of each other, which is often sadly forgotten. Good job!

i think its funny that people are willing to distance them selves from Extra Credits because of its anti gamergate stance but wont distance them selves from gamergate because of the harassment. I'm just saying that one of these things seems to be a more damning offence than the other.

Man, I can't wait for the flame war about GamerGate in the comments.

Can you make a video on gamergate purely so I can learn wtf it is?

Please please please do more of these. I am currently teaching logical fallacies to my students (I teach senior level English), and these are so helpful. You already covered three of the ten I mentioned in class too! I will definitely show these to my students

I understand why mike isnt' going to do a gamergate episode, its pure lose-lose for him. if he takes the side of gamergate hes a misogynist if hes anti hes pro corruption in games journalism and/or doesn't care about the gaming industry.

While I disagree with you Gamergate stance, shunning someones ideas because they're contrary is wrong and makes it seem like you aren't prepared to defend your own argument. I've disagreed with so many things you've said over the course of my Subscritionship but I continue to watch because it is engaging to hear and argue over differing view points and you do it in an entertaining way.

I love Newsroom. Here's why: a platform for media is faulted and criticized because all of a sudden its host decides to up and have an opinion -- and televise it. He becomes clear when he discusses his opinion and is also fair when he encounters an argument or is presenting something that is happening. That's what this channel is to me. It's why I'll keep watching. It's why I'll watch even if it were to say something as absurd as, "People are bad. They are never good. They are always bad.". Why? Because as long as the argument is presented well, argued and criticized, I and quite a few others have the unfortunate burden of being at least mildly intellectual. Enough so to be able to chime in and say or present things that run in the contrary. This argument is, if well presented, called attention to rather than buried. And that's why I, personally, watch this channel. I do not watch it because I need my perspective reinforced and my ego stroked, I watch it because it's a good encapsulation of an argument that I can pose and contend and regardless of whether or not I agree, it gives very good opportunities to invoking a dialectic method. Because even if I disagree, the arguments proposed is presented in such a way that enriches my understanding of my own opinion. Which if I must explicitly say so -- is (to me) a good thing. I find that more knowledge, more opinions and more healthy debate helps break people (such as myself) out of academic and intellectual insecurity. Thank you, Idea Channel.

please do more episodes like this was so nice to see falsies laid out outside of a college classroom.

I honestly just wish this GamerGate business could come to close, because as far as I've seen, there's been absolutely nothing positive coming from it. I'm not saying that bias and ethics shouldn't be questioned, but just that this specific case has created nothing of value /that I've seen/, while stirring up a lot of groundless hatred and character arguments that I don't want any part of. That being said, I don't think anybody should be watching this channel who is only interested in hearing about views that they agree with. The whole point is raising questions and discussing ideas, and you shouldn't be restricted from approaching "sensitive" subjects. This channel's been very open and nonjudgmental so far, and has a very clear separation between opinion and fact, and I'm sure that won't change any time soon. P.S. NaNoWriMo's coming up. Any ideas? ;;;)

Your statement towards the end suggests to say that there is no evidence that will change your view on the debate surrounding Gate Gate. You have arrived to the topic will a preset notion about the issue and only seek to cherry pick data that confirms the preset notion. I'm sorry to say that such a position seems to be the zenith of a anti-intellectual ideologue.

I don't really have anything to talk about with this subject... But please don't ever bring Straw Mike back.... He terrifies me..

What is the fallacy where a father or mother responds to an argument with "I am your parent, therefore I am right"?

make a video explaining GamerGate never herd of it before and i feel left out now

Gamergate is defined by what it has done, not what it believes it stands for.

I really liked this video because I'm one of those people who go into those full brony/hater comment wars and try to resolve peace. I feel if I could point out these fallacies that both Bronies and Haters use, then maybe we can come to peace. Because usually all I see is the haters going "your gay" or "horse f*ckers" and bronies going "you don't deserve to live" and the worse one..."love and tolerate". I feel like it's just anything go's in those comment wars, and I want to stop them. So thank you for some new ways to resolve them. -Goldendiamond945

I'm so tired of seeing the "Authority Fallacy" (or "Argument from Authority") yet again misrepresented. The key here is between the authority bolstering the validity of the argument or the soundness. Claiming that "Global Warming is true because of the scientific consensus" is an example of the Authority Fallacy (and the Bandwagon Fallacy). It isn't _necessarily_ true just because there's a scientific consensus, which is why it's fallacious. If a premise of your argument depends on proving Global Warming is true, the scientific consensus is good for bolstering the _soundness_ of the premise, but it doesn't help its _validity_.

Yes please make more of these! I love practical logic!

Here's an idea: "Pointing out logical flaws in internet discussions actually *diminishes* the likelihood of productive discourse." ~dee-do-de-neeryu~ Alright, so there's been a *LOT* of discussion in the wake of this video. A large percentage of which devolves rapidly into meta-arguments about who used what fallacy in their explanation of why someone else's argument was fallacious. And while this is not out of place in a video about logical fallacies, it is a prime example of the detriment of using logic in internet discussions. First things first--we need to understand the difference between a _proof_ and a _convincing_ argument. A *proof* is a logical structure used to show--without any doubt--that something is true. It is based on a number of axioms then proceeds through a methodical process to come to a conclusion. This conclusion, provided that the proof was structured properly, is an undeniable truth and anyone with an understanding of logic can look at and say, "Yep, that holds up. If the axioms are true, then so too must this conclusion be true." A fallacy is an error in one of the steps of the proof. If any step of the proof is fallacious, then the *proof* is rendered null and void. It is important to note, however, that pointing out a fallacy in a proof does not _itself_ constitute a proof of the opposite conclusion. It just shows that more rigid structure is needed to come to the correct conclusion. The assumption that a fallacy in a proof proves the opposite conclusion is what's called the *Fallacy Fallacy*. The majority of discussions--both on and offline--are *not* structured logical proofs, but rather are attempts to convince a party that one point of view is preferable to an opposing one. This is doubly, triply, quadruply true for complex social issues. While a person may appeal to logic when trying to construct a convincing argument, their argument does not _depend_ on logic. In this case, knowing and noticing fallacy is excellent for keeping a certain level of grounding in your beliefs, but is no reason to shut down and refuse to take a person seriously or keep yourself open to the chance of being swayed by an otherwise convincing argument. The serious problem occurs when people start to see these minor breaches in logic as a justifiable escape route from a conversation. Pointing out a fallacy in such an argument and using that as an excuse not to take a person seriously is incredibly dismissive and, well....rude. No informal convincing discussion will be logically air-tight. Nor can they be. Nor should they *NEED* to be to be taken seriously. Using logic to dismiss people who try to explain their views on complex issues is just a tempting way to abscond from serious discussion while maintaining an illusion of victory and/or superiority. Giving in to this temptation halts meaningful discourse and, when given into on a large scale, stunts the growth of society. So, while an understanding of logical structure is incredibly important for any adult trying to get by in this crazy crazy world, with great power comes great responsibility. Knowledge of how to spot fallacies needs to come hand in hand with the discipline to not use it as a wall to hide behind, safe in the comforting familiarity of an unchallenged worldview. What do you think? Is an overreliance on logic in informal discussion dangerous to the advancement of discourse? Leave a response below. (In all seriousness though I really would like to hear what people think)

Thank you for publicly standing against harassment, vitriol, and bad argumentation. I don't envy you for the calibre of comment you're likely to receive, but I'm glad that you stand up for what you believe in. For the very little that it's worth, a stranger on the internet supports you. I would love to hear you do a break down of what "Social Justice Warrior" means and what it says about views of gender on the internet. Is it merely disguised misogyny and sublimated racism, or are there more complex factors at work?

Wow, gee I started this video thinking "I don't argue with these", but the more I watched, the more I realized that I've used all these a lot.

I'm just that guy, reading the comments, not wanting to take sides.

How is condemning "GamerGaters" because of the actions of the tiny vocal minority of idiots, trolls and actual misogynists any different from condemning a religion because of an extremist minority for example? Those people aren't even about GamerGate anyway. Not that I've payed a lot of attention to the whole thing lately, because frankly I don't even give a damn anymore with all the misinformation and labeling. I just want to keep my own thoughts as far as possible from labels like "GamerGater" or "SJW" etc.

I feel like this comment thread is a piece of installation-art, where the point is just to scroll through and see Aaallllllllllll the many logical fallacies being used on every side of every argument. It's almost painful.

This is good stuff. I work at a university, where we teach critical thinking and it's always helpful to have videos like this, so people can watch it over and over if they want (so they don't have to sit and listen to us repeating it over and over... and over.). There's a lot of them out there, but a bit less formal and a little humor works better if you ask me. There's a few small mistakes/gaps, of which the clearest one is the ommission that the authority falacy is also applied when someone uses his/her authority to empower a flawed argument. (a.k.a. don't believe anyone just because they said so and their job is related ;-) ). But despite those: Thanks!

I find you take on the #gamergate situation very close to, if not apart of the "ad hominem to quoque" fallacy, Some members of #gamergate may or may not be misogynists, but you are disregarding any and all points made because of this. I assume you are on the "If you criticize feminism/feminists you must be a misogynist" bandwagon...

While I commend you being upfront with your beliefs so that you do not leave extra-credits in the wind, I do feel like you only made this video in anticipation of this announcement. It's almost as if you're encouraging us to hash it out in the comments about gamergate and not the actual video. As someone who is sick of this argument and want nothing more than a brand new approach to be taken to address the problem, instead trying to pigeon-hole every gamer into one of two slots, I really would've liked this video to stand on its own.

Another one I see a lot of is the Fallacy fallacy. Possibly relevant here, as some may use this fallacy to refute others while linking to your short videos. The Fallacy fallacy is a tactic used where someone will attempt to discredit an entire claim simply because it is either poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, regardless of the underlying veracity of that claim. yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

The straw man wasn't really clear, but what I understood is replacing the argument with a simpler one to knock it over.

*Scrolls down into the comments* *Sees examples of each fallacy within the first 10 comment threads* I don't think this video worked out to well. :(

Wait, I can't hate video game journalism now without being considered an abusive sexist? I've hated them since way before this Gamergate stuff, but now I'm roped in with sexist Internet trolls? And you don't want to be "not even a little" pro Gamergate? Can't you just not support the sexist part that's been associated with it by, lets face it, video game journalists? Does that mean major video game journalism can be as corrupt as it wants now and any one who opposes them is a horrible bully?

I think you got a couple of them a little bit wrong. Argument from authority is a fallacy even when the authority is an expert, or the scientific consensus. The fallacy is a fallacy because it is not counter to reason for anyone, or any number of people, to be wrong about anything - no matter their level of expertise. That's not to say that telling a climate change denier (to borrow your example) that all the experts believe it so it must be true isn't a valid avenue of discussion, but if you go down that path, then the argument is no longer about the validity of climate change (directly at least) but about the reliability of expert climatologists. For an example that makes this more obvious, think about something you disagree with (I would venture homeopathy) then think of all the most knowledgable people on that specific subject.

More fallacies please. Logical fallacies are my favorite thing ever!

Your entire closing thoughts on gamer gate are the very things you accuse of being fallacious as a "no true scotsman" that all the things that are not in that negative trait "don't count because you said so"

Can I be contra-quinn and contra-sarkeesian (and the like) without calling myself pro-gamergate (not meaning that I'm contra-gamergame - i just haven't informed myself enough on the subject I think) ?

I enjoyed this video. I enjoy almost all of your videos. Even though you said you weren't pro-gamergate, I will continue to watch your videos. I am pro-gamergate, but you also stand for what gamergate stands for. Ethics in journalism, inclusive games, and anti-bullying or harassment. I don't like how gamergate has been hijacked by trolls, misogynists, and anti-gamergater but I stand by its true principals. I don't want to be disrespected or misrepresented by the gaming press. I don't want to be called horrible things just because I stand for ethics in journalism. What's happening to gamergate feels like how america treated Muslims after 9/11. A few radicals taint the whole group and now every Muslim has to apologize for who they are. I will not apologize to people who insult me or be sidetracked by trolls who send death threats. We will expose the trolls and report them. Because I believe gamergate is good at heart. We have just been misrepresented by a media that does not understand nuance or trolls.

I have found that the best argument is no argument at all. As Rush Limbaugh says: "When you are arguing with an idiot, it's hard to tell the difference."

Watching Straw-Mike is making me really uncomfortable for some reason...

while my continued viewing of your channel is not dependant on your views on gamergate (since your views on it don't invalidate your views on any other subject), i'd still like to point out, that your aversion to GG is not based on logic. you recognize the point of gg to be about journalistic integrity and ethics, but then oppose it, because of the actions of a few individuals self-identifying as gamergaters. the actions of those harassers in no way invalidate the point that gg makes. it is an ad hominem fallacy (oh the irony, right) to dismiss the argument, by critizising the people making it (or in this case a small minority of the people).

Thx 4 the Straw Man Fallacy! I have a test coming up Tomorrow Morning so hopefully i'll get a Good Grade.

Thank you so much for being against harassment.